Dismissed

Thannuru Srinivasarao v. The State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012CRLRC/1651/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, petitioners challenged their conviction under IPC Sections 452, 323, and 427. The court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding that eyewitness identification and acquaintance established identity despite the lack of a test identification parade or full names in the FIR. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by A-1 and A-3 was dismissed, upholding their convictions and sentences.

Thannuru Srinivasarao Vs The State of a.P., rep… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1651 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

A-1 and A-3 in calendar case i.e. C.C.No.127/1999 on the file of the court of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali (trial court), are petitioners in this revision. The case is a police case.

¶5

2. Initially six accused i.e. A-1 to A-6 were tried on charges under Sections 452, 323 and 427 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. The trial court by its judgment dated 11.04.2001 acquitted

¶6

A-4 and A-5, but convicted A-1 to A-3 and A-6 of the charges under Sections 452, 323 and 427 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- on the first count, RI for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- on the second count and RI for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/- on the third count imposing default clause prison sentences on each count.

¶7

3. A-1 to A-3 and A-6 filed appeal i.e. Crl.A.No.242/2001 questioning the judgment of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, A-2 died and so the case against him stood abated. By its judgment dated 27.05.2004 the appellate court i.e. the Court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, acquitted A-6, and while confirming the convictions of A-1 and A-3 for the offences under Sections 323 and 427 IPC it altered their convictions from Section 452 IPC into Section 448 IPC. Then turning to sentences, the appellate court has set aside the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to A-1 and A-3 but imposed additional fine amounts on each count as indicated in its judgment while imposing default clause prison sentences. It is questioning that appellate

¶8

judgment A-1 and A-3 have come up with this revision.

¶9

4. The prosecution case is that on 29.03.1999 at about 10' O clock in the night A-1 who is the brother-in-law of A-6 along with A-2 to A-5 criminally trespassed into the house of P.W.1 Pirati Mallikarjuna Rao and highhandedly attacked P.W.1 and also his wife P.W.2 Pirati Sarada and caused simple hurt to P.W.1 and also committed mischief by destroying some flower pots and some articles kept in their house. The prosecution version is that P.W.1, A-6 and P.W.5 A.Venkateswara Rao were earlier partners in a retail wine shop at Tenali and above incident occurred due to some disputes in that business between P.W.1 and A-6 and on the date and time of the incident A-1 to A-6 committed the above offences in the house of P.W.1 at Tenali.

¶10

5. Both the trial court and the appellate court discussed in detail the prosecution evidence consisting of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 7 and the documentary evidence consisting of Exs.P.1 to P.5 and also the defence evidence consisting of the oral evidence of defence witness i.e. D.W.1 and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.D.1 and D.2 and reached their respective conclusions and ultimately the appellate court found only A-1 and A-3 guilty as stated supra. A-2 is already dead and the prosecution did not file any appeal or revision questioning the acquittals of other accused or modification of the convictions of A- 1 and A-3 into Section 448 IPC or the enhancement of the sentences.

¶11

6. Sri Rajareddy Koneti the learned counsel appearing for A-1 and A-3 mainly pointed out that the name of A-3 is not found in the FIR and even the name of A-1 is given as ‘Sreenu’ without giving his full name and no test identification parade has been held and

¶12

that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be treated as sufficiently establishing the identity of A-1 and A-3 as culprits. He further pointed out that both the courts below ignored this aspect and erroneously convicted them. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the evidence of P.W.1 would sufficiently show that he described A-1 and A-3 as shown as assailants and identified them in the court and that both the courts discussed this aspect thoroughly and found them guilty and consequently there are no grounds to disturb the conclusion of the appellate court.

¶13

7. At the time of arguments Sri Rajareddy took me through Ex.P.1 report/FIR given by P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the victim and his wife and who are eye-witnesses to the incident to show that his contention has to be accepted. It is true that no test identification parade has been held. It should however be noted that P.W.1 in his evidence spoke about the incident and categorically stated that A-1 to A-3 along with others entered into his house and attacked him. Suggestions were made to P.W.1 that A-1 and A-3 are innocent but he denied the same and asserted that he knows A-1 and A-3 and named them as assailants.

¶14

8. It should be noted that the motive for the attack is stated to be that on the previous day a quarrel broke out between P.W.1 and A-6 regarding the treatment given by A-6 to certain income tax officials who visited the wine shop and A-6 instigated A-1 to A-5 to attack him because of that quarrel. P.W.1 stated that A-1 is the relation of A-6 as brother-in-law and P.W.1 stated that he knows both A-1 and A-3 and asserted about their identity as culprits in the court. It is true that in Ex.P.1 FIR, A-1 is described merely as

¶15

‘Sreenu’ and Sri Raja Reddy says that there may be several persons by name ‘Sreenu’ and the evidence is not clear to which ‘Sreenu’ he was referring to and that both A-1 and A-3 are Srinivas Rao and Srinivas Reddy and unless identification is clear their complicity cannot be said to have been established.

¶16

9. It may be noted that A-1 and A-3 belong to a place in Tenali Rural area and P.Ws.1 and 2 belong to Tenali and the version of P.W.1 is A-1 used to attend the above wine shop for doing business and he has also seen A-3 and therefore he could speak about them and identify them. The record shows that P.W.1 subsequently came to know about the names of petitioners and gave them to police. It should also be noted that where a witness asserts about the identity of assailants stating that he has acquaintance with them though he failed to give the names in the FIR and identifies them in the court, it cannot be said that failure of the investigating officer to get a test identification parade held is fatal. The evidence of the said witnesses cannot also be rejected on the ground that names were not clearly stated in the FIR in such a situation. Both the courts below considered all these aspects in the evidence and the appellate court ultimately concluded that

¶17

A-1 and A-3 cannot escape from their liability. Thus the above findings of both the courts below are findings of fact based on evidence and it cannot be said that they are wholly against evidence and perverse.

¶18

10. In the above circumstances and for the reasons aforesaid, it follows that this court cannot interfere in the matter in a revision. Even the sentences imposed upon the petitioners (A-1 and A-3), they cannot be said to be harsh. Accordingly this revision case is

¶19

dismissed.

¶20

________________________ N. RAVISHANKAR, J 2^nd February, 2012 Cvrk

Thannuru Srinivasarao v. The State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thannuru Srinivasarao v. The State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State rep. by Inspector of Police Vs Sri a. Subba Rao

Birudugadda Asibabu, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Shaik Nayeem Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karumuru Sambi Reddy, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd.